May 17, 2009

Waste as a Resource... RRRR'$

After Gutenberg, over thousands and thousands of years have developed ways to deal with agricultural waste, there has been more of a problem with what to do with forestry waste and municipal solid waste.

"Today, most American garbage is sent to landfills, some spanning hundreds of acres miles from the cities that generate the refuse. New York City, which tosses about eight million tons of nonindustrial trash each year, trucks much of it to big landfills in states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania."

Biogas Life CycleAs previously noted, converting municipal solid waste to energy could reduce the need for landfills while helping to alleviate a dependency upon fossil fuels. A recent story2 in the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) about the incineration of municipal solid waste included some interesting facts. For instance, "Today, the U.S. burns 13% of its trash; it sends 54% of its trash to landfills and recycles 33% of it."

  1. The best way to deal with trash is to produce less of it. The next-best way is to recycle more of it, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But that still leaves loads of trash, and burning it to produce electricity is better than burying it in a landfill, the EPA says. Incinerating a ton of trash emits at least 35% less greenhouse gas and yields 10 times as much electricity as burying it, according to a recent study by EPA researchers.
  2. A bill drafted by Congressional Democrats would give incineration, known as "waste-to-energy," a boost. The bill would require utilities to produce 20% of their electricity from renewable-energy sources and energy-efficiency improvements by 2020. The bill's current version defines waste-to-energy as one form of renewable power.

While such proposed legislation would seem an opportunity for the perpetuation of further abuse by our Congress critters, there may be some good in burning trash to produce heat and electricity when there is good enforcement of well-crafted rules to minimize pollution. Yeah, I know, "Sarcasm on the Internet, how novel!" Notes the WSJ, "Today's incinerators are markedly cleaner than their predecessors, yet they still pollute." And, quoting Marchant Wentworth, a renewable-energy campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the WSJ warns, "One percent of a very toxic substance is still a very toxic substance."

According to a study by the European Environment Agency, some countries in Europe burn more of their trash for energy since there is less available space for landfills and fewer domestic fossil-fuel resources. Also, upgraded biogas is becoming an increasing portion of total natural gas consumed in some European countries.

 

Still there must be consideration of the amount of and the distance such feedstock must be conveyed, plus consideration of the resources required to prepare the waste stream for energy production. A co-generation facility requires homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. And, all incinerators, which burn solid waste for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible matter, require procedures for handling ash. Given recent catastrophes with fly ash ponds associated with coal fired power plants, there is the possibility of similar harm from waste to energy facilities without diligent monitoring of appropriate disposal.

Proponents argue that recycling and Waste-to-Energy efforts can be compatible and an opportunity to reduce energy consumed in recycling

Many environmentalists worry that encouraging trash incineration will impinge on recycling efforts. A 2008 study by trash consultant Eileen Brettler Berenyi concluded that trash incineration isn't restraining recycling. Her study, partly funded by the trash-incineration industry, found that U.S. communities with waste-to-energy plants tend to have higher-than-average recycling rates.

 

Read full by jcwinnie

Similar Posts by jcwinnie: